Sanders v. Castaneda ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 Timothy Sanders, Case No. 2:22-cv-01373-APG-EJY 5 Plaintiff, 6 v. ORDER 7 Castaneda, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 44. 11 Plaintiff’s Motion asserts that counsel should be appointed based on the nature and severity of his 12 claims, his limited ability to litigate his case while incarcerated, his inability to afford counsel, and 13 the complexity of the claims raised. ECF No. 44 at 1-8. As a general proposition, a civil litigant 14 has no right to counsel. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County, 452 U.S. 18 15 (1981); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). A court may under “exceptional 16 circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 17 Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub nom. 18 Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). When determining whether “exceptional 19 circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 20 ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 21 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 22 Plaintiff reiterates the claims raised in his Amended Complaint and states he will succeed 23 on the merits. ECF No. 44. However, Plaintiff’s assertions are insufficient to warrant appointment 24 of counsel. Carroll v. California Dep’t of Corr., Case No. 19-CV-2126-BAS-KSC, 2021 WL 25 1963812, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 17, 2021). Further, Plaintiff’s ability to clearly articulate the nature 26 of his claims demonstrates he is more than capable of pleading his case. As for his limitations in 27 his ability to litigate while incarcerated, inability to afford counsel, and the complexity of the legal 28 1 656 Fed.Appx. 297, 299 (9th Cir. 2016). Indeed, “the Constitution does not require the elimination 2 of all economic, intellectual, and technological barriers to litigation.” Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 3 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 4 (1996). See also Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990) (finding that prisoner 5 litigants’ lack of a legal education does not constitute exceptional circumstances). 6 Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has not established exceptional circumstance and IT 7 IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 44) is 8 DENIED. 9 DATED this 24th day of July, 2024. 10 11 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28